Re: [boost] [Release 1.34] Supported Compilers

From: AlisdairM (alisdair.meredith_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-31 03:49:13

Thomas Witt wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> several recent posts touched the issue of deprecating compilers in
> the next release.
> 
> Given the fact that we don't even seem to know what deprecating means
> I would like to propose the following:
> 
> Compiler support should be phased out instead of dropped. I see three 
> different stages here.
> 
> Fully Supported
> ---------------
> 
> Libraries should make an effort to support these compilers.
> Regressions in support version to version should be avoided. (Weasel
> wording intended). Full regression testing.
> 
> Marked Deprecated
> -----------------
> 
> No effort is required to support these compilers in new
> functionality.  Version to version regressions are accepted after the
> first version that marked these compilers as deprecated. Full
> regression testing (if resources are available). One key idea here is
> to give the user a good idea on the level of available functionality
> until a toolset reaches the "Unsupported" stage.
> 
> 
> Unsupported
> -----------
> 
> No regression testing is done. (Library authors might still support 
> these toolsets for their libraries on a case by case basis.)
> 
> 
> AFAICS there seems to be strong support for moving gcc-2.95 and vc6
> to "Marked Deprecated" and somebody needs to fight Alisdair over
> Borland (volunteers? any?).
> 
> Comments
> 
> Thomas

I think it is an important discussion that is good to have, I just hope
I don't lose too much in the process ;?)

I would suggest this is more than just a developer question though,
this affects boost 'customers' and is probably worth repeating on the
Boost user list as well.

-- 
AlisdairM